Dems Poised to Sing Different Tune...

AssHatZombie said:
That and eliminating trade all together with nations who don't beleive in individualism and civil rights, free expression etcetera. We should be fighting totalitarianism, not enabling it.

Trade should take place inside a framework of other concerns. Long term thinking should be applied, instead of short term stupidity.
Click to expand...

totalitarianism and corporatism.
Noun 1. corporatism - control of a state or organization by large interest groups; "individualism is in danger of being swamped by a kind of corporatism"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/corporatism

our short term stupidity turns into long term profits for them. Our country has become a cash cow for anti-social corporate interests.
 
Southern Man said:
That's one scenario. An other is that they will become even more arrogant and accelerate their agenda, bust through any filibuster or bribe Olympia Snowe. They'll race off a cliff, hitting the valley floor below in te 2010 elections and damage the Democrat Party's chances to retain power for a generation. Frankly I hope this happens.

You'll see this attitude among rabid liberals on this board in the next few days. :)
Click to expand...

I believe this could be what will happen. In fact, I think the Democrats will hoist on their own petard, and the people be damned. They are incredulous that they are losing control so quickly and are like rabid skunks.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's hyperbole too. If W could accomplish a legislative agenda with out a congressional super majority then Obama can to if he ever decides to lead. I'm just scathingly critical about Obama's lack of leadership on HC reform. All this political back lash is purely his fault for not using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to explain HC reform to the American people. He left it up to a Democratically controlled congress and we now have seen where that's gotten him.

At some point Obama has to quit managing situations and get off his ass and lead!
Click to expand...

It was Rahm Emmanuel's strategy to let congress deal with it, after his experience with Clinton. I think Emmanuel's advice was bad though. He didn't have to essentially draft the bill himself but he could've offered some advice.
 
Atheistmark said:
It was Rahm Emmanuel's strategy to let congress deal with it, after his experience with Clinton. I think Emmanuel's advice was bad though. He didn't have to essentially draft the bill himself but he could've offered some advice.
Click to expand...
That may be well and true and Obama may damned well need a new advisor but ultimately the buck stops at his desk.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's hyperbole too. If W could accomplish a legislative agenda with out a congressional super majority then Obama can to if he ever decides to lead. I'm just scathingly critical about Obama's lack of leadership on HC reform. All this political back lash is purely his fault for not using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to explain HC reform to the American people. He left it up to a Democratically controlled congress and we now have seen where that's gotten him.

At some point Obama has to quit managing situations and get off his ass and lead!
Click to expand...

You're assuming that Obama knows his ass from a hole in the ground.

He's in way over his head and if this past year isn't demonstrable proof of that fact, I don't know what is.

The only thing he will lead is the line that follows the stupid morons who are really running this country!
 
Haters like watermark like to use trade to displace populations and create turmoil.

Some trade is harmful, despite the globalist idiot zealots.
 
If you study the presidencies of those who accomplished a second term in recient times.... Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr.... you will see that they all started with an agressive push to impose a "radical" approach staying away from moderation in the first two years... Then offering a more consillatory tone for the second two years.

It makes sense politically, they please the far wing of the base, then run center for the election. It also makes sense in attempting to accomplishing anything, you are never more popular than the first 100 days after taking office. (Bush was briefly much more popular after 9-11 but that is an anamoly, and he used that popularity to impose his radical war agenda.)

This, for President Obama is the path to reelection, its good for his reelection, not necessarily good for the Democratic party, short term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top